[rescue] Re: [geeks] new list: RANTS

[Ken Hansen]

Bill, then "Just Say No" - not archiving is a very slight defense - a
forwarded email would be just as damning, and you would have no
deniability... (IMHO, IANAL, ETC)

Laywer: "Mr. Bill, did this message that claims to have come through
your maillist actually come from you r maillist?"

Mr. Bill: "I Dunno."

Laywer: "So it could have?"

Mr. Bill: "Yes."

Just my thoughts...

I think the issue would be editorial oversight - you can sue Salon
(they control their content), but you can't sue AOL (they repeat
others content without review). (Again, IANAL, IMHO, ETC)

Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bradford" <mrbill at mrbill.net>
To: <rescue at sunhelp.org>
Cc: <geeks at mrbill.net>; <rescue at mrbill.net>; <sunhelp at mrbill.net>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [rescue] Re: [geeks] new list: RANTS


> On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 10:11:36AM -0800, Francisco Javier
Mesa-Martinez wrote:
> > Should we start using the spook mode in Emacs now :-) ? Is there
any
> > precedent of people being prosecuted for stuff they wrote on a
> > newsgroup/website/mailing list that archived and then used as
> > evidence against them? I am just curious.
>
> Look at www.fuckedcompany.com - they're trying to subpeona Phil
Kaplan
> to find out the ID of people who posted on his anonymous message
boards...
>
> I dont have the time or money to "fight" if VA threw lawyers at me;
I'd
> just shut the whole thing (web site and lists) down.
>
> Bill
>
> --
> Bill Bradford
> mrbill at mrbill.net
> Austin, TX
> _______________________________________________
> rescue maillist  -  rescue at sunhelp.org
> http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue